Scott Jennings, a seasoned commentator from the Republican side, recently spoke out against the unexpected trajectory that some comedians have adopted, which mostly involves active participation in Democratic campaigns. This shift in tone was particularly noticeable following the election win of Donald Trump. Jennings’ criticism was not aimed randomly but was instead particularly pointed at popular entertainers such as Jimmy Kimmel. His main contention was that by taking such an overt stand, they could potentially estrange half of their American audience who might have supported Trump.
He underscored the point that limiting an audience to those who didn’t support Trump was a risky strategy. According to Jennings, the key issue lies in making an assumption about the political leanings of audience members. The implicit suggestion that only those who did not vote for Trump were ‘significant’, hints at a disregard for a vast segment of the population that may then choose to disconnect from such performers.
Interestingly, Jennings also pointed out that certain liberal figures displayed much more discernment in this regard. Bill Maher, a well-known comedian with a show on HBO, figures prominently among those who’ve criticized their own colleagues for being overly extreme in their views. Indeed, it seems that Maher understands the potential pitfall of aligning comedy too closely with political activism.
‘These folks have stumbled into a sad state of affairs,’ Jennings articulated. He went on to elaborate, saying that there’s been a noticeable shift from their original roles as comedians to becoming more like political activists. The sight of Jimmy Kimmel shedding tears on TV appeared particularly pathetic to Jennings.
This marked shift, according to Jennings, runs contrary to what audiences typically expect from their late-night comedic fix. Viewers tune in expecting a light-hearted, funny show to end their day and this new trajectory of politically-charged rants could potentially compromise that. He challenges the long-term viability of this activism-driven amusement, particularly when it’s positioned as comedy but ends up being nothing more than pedestrian political activism.
That said, Jennings acknowledged the counter-argument presented by some, asserting the role these comedians play in reflecting the sentiments of a large cross-section of people. Their perspective is that by taking a stand, these comedians are voicing the concerns of many. However, Jennings finds this rationale intriguing and questions if it isn’t mutually exclusive with respecting the rights and opinions of Trump supporters.
His assertion, while still provoking, does not seem unfounded. The sentiment that these entertainers might be inherently discounting the rights of Trump supporters is not an insignificant concern. Especially when it is distinctly perceived by many that these shows are aimed against a specific political faction – in this case, those who align with Trump.
Jenkins suggests a more balanced approach where late-night shows could provide some relief with humor while staying sensitive to the diverse political leanings of their audience. He proposes that laughter should be the primary purpose of these late-night shows rather than acting as a platform to further any political agenda.
He emphasizes that the art of comedy should not be replaced by political activism. A merger of the two would not only dilute the charm of the comedic world but could also potentially alienate a significant part of its audience base. This focus on positioning comedy as a means to promote certain political leanings might accelerate disenchantment among the audience.
Even as Jennings expresses his concerns, he is not singularly dismissive of the late-night show hosts becoming more socio-politically aware. It’s clear from his commentary that he doesn’t discourage them from having and expressing their opinions, but he emphasizes the importance of balance, stating that these should not become the sole focus of their shows.
Adding credibility to his perspective is the fact that the ‘activist comedians’ have garnered support from some quarters. However, he wonders whether alienating another half could really serve the overall purpose of comedy. He advocates that irrespective of how well-intentioned these comments might appear, they can easily lead to unnecessary bifurcations among the audience.
Aware of the multiple perspectives, Jennings simply hopes for a fine balance between humor and activism. He wants the hosts to remember not to let their democratic rights to free speech overspill into propaganda. Taking one side might seem laudable to some, but it risks ostracizing those on the ‘other side’ of the audience.
Indeed, the crux of Jennings’ argument appears to be a return to the good old days of comedy – humor intended purely to lighten moods and provoke laughter, unattached to any political bias. Yet, he acknowledges the significant role these entertainers play and hopes they can continue to bring joy into the lives of millions without alienating any section of society.
WATCH:
“At some point, people might expect it to be funny”: @ScottJenningsKY ROASTS late night Regime comics pic.twitter.com/AB9ngrInLq
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) November 12, 2024